Feed on Posts or Comments 22 May 2018

Christianity Johnson on 07 May 2009 12:43 am

Religion explains nothing

Here is a fascinating little video that demonstrates just how little religion explains about the origin of the universe. Neither God nor Allah nor Ra nor any other god created our universe:

Here is where our universe did come from: Where did our universe come from?

23 Responses to “Religion explains nothing”

  1. on 07 May 2009 at 7:50 pm 1.GotMooo said …

    I love NonStampCollector’s videos. They’re hilarious.

  2. on 07 May 2009 at 11:01 pm 2.LD said …


  3. on 07 May 2009 at 11:04 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    Lol, what?

  4. on 08 May 2009 at 6:10 pm 4.Snowflake said …

    This video is a good illustration of what I think is so inviting about ignosticism. Without any evidence to point us in any particular direction, we have no place to make claim about the supernatural.

    Mankind excels at making a leap from wondering about things like existence to applying specific myth and characteristics to it. It’s a pretty big jump from “I wonder what created the universe?” to “It was one specific God who created man in his image and spoke through a burning bush and flooded the earth and sent his son to be crucified etc. etc.”

    We anthropomorphize the supernatural because it’s the only point of view we have. The best case in point is the Abrahamic notion that we are created “in God’s image”. But the supernatural is really a shapeless and definition-less thing that may or may not exist. We strive to put names and attributes on it because it comforts us, but we need to take a step back and be honest with ourselves – we have no evidence either way as to the existence of the metaphysical, much less what form it might take.

    It is dishonest to make claims without any actual knowledge of something. So while we do not know how the universe began, and one might theorize that the First Cause was supernatural in its nature, that is where the theory must stop, as there is no basis for any further definition of that supernatural.

  5. on 08 May 2009 at 10:40 pm 5.Lou said …

    “one might theorize that the First Cause was supernatural in its nature, that is where the theory must stop, as there is no basis for any further definition of that supernatural.”

    Why should we stop? I think we should continue to study, hypothesize and theorize. Science is only a tool and to believe everything begins and ends with science is being short-sighted. Philosophy and theology contibute much to the ontological quest.

    The belief that God was the first cause doesn’t mean that the science of origins stops. Hey, if it is wrong won’t science leave little doubt eventually? Right now there is no less than 120 Big Bang models with numerous unknowns in all of them, not counting the origin of the bang. Sense science has no answer it seems silly to thrown rocks when you live in a glass house.

    We don’t need this kind of thinking “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” Sam Harris

    Its just not constructive dialogue and it boarders on Nazism.

  6. on 09 May 2009 at 2:36 am 6.Bleu said …

    You make another unbased connection to Nazism and you’ll be rightfully labeled as a troll.

    Quiz time! Have you.. (still with me?) ever.. (yeah?) leeeeaaarrrrnnneeeedd anything from (I hope your attention (still with me?) span hasn’t given out) here?

  7. on 09 May 2009 at 2:50 pm 7.Rostam said …

    The ones that chastise the most about others not Learning are usually the most ignorant. The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge.

  8. on 09 May 2009 at 4:41 pm 8.Bleu said …

    I’d have to say you are pretty damn ignorant and stupid, considering you know nothing and teaching you doesn’t stick.

  9. on 10 May 2009 at 2:38 pm 9.Lou said …


    I couldn’t agree more. Amazing how some think they have all the answers and their beliefs are the only ones worthy of consideration.

    Let me share a quote from the master of propaganda that parallels Sam Harris beliefs very closely so as to make my case to Bleu.

    “Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.”

    I still believe a comparison to Nazism is a fair comparison for Harris and his hate speech. Its too bad so many atheist will defend Harris but expect the Christians and Muslims to speak out against their nut-jobs. A lot of similarities between those three as well.

  10. on 10 May 2009 at 6:26 pm 10.Cheddar. said …

    You agree with him probably because you’re the samne person.

    As per the rules of internet discussion, I call Godwin’s Law, and you are a troll to be ignored.

  11. on 10 May 2009 at 8:45 pm 11.I AM said …

    When you look up, when you look down, when you look all around… I AM there. The stone that you pick up to throw, the summer breeze that you feel on your face, the rain drops that nourish the flowers that you take a few moments to enjoy the sweet perfume, the stars above in the night sky that lights your way… I AM there. Even if you do not believe, you will still enter into heaven, for your soul cries out to me!

  12. on 10 May 2009 at 9:40 pm 12.Cheddar. said …


  13. on 11 May 2009 at 1:14 am 13.Wildbird said …

    I’ve long thought that an argument of one religion versus fact is putting the cart before the horse. It seems like an argument for any particular supernatural worldview should first establish the viability of supernatural processes, then show why that particular supernatural system is superior to all other supernatural systems.

    Any time, for instance, that I hear a Christian argue for their particular god (although it seems to me that the bible describes more than one), I imagine the same argument with another religion plugged in. The ancient Egyptian gods must be real because the hieroglyphs say so, and the Egyptian gods inspired those writings, no? You can plug Zeus, Odin, or a bunch of other deities into fundamentalist reasoning.

    Even if an adherent for a particular religion believes they have trumped rationalism, they still need to show why their irrational beliefs are right and other irrational beliefs are wrong.

    I would love to be able just say “god X made it, that’s why” and go on my happy way. That’s not the real world, though. The more I seek, the more I find that mythology is mythology, and most of it is outdated, irrelevant and silly. I need grown-up answers.

  14. on 11 May 2009 at 1:19 am 14.Wildbird said …

    And what does this even mean?


    Based upon the level of literacy and the statistical correlation between religiosity and education, I am going take the safe bet and say it is something from a believer.

    Although I suspect that “grave safety” refers to putting caution tape around an open grave, keeping hands and feet clear when the casket is being lowered, and checking everything twice before burying the casket. OSHA must have a video on this.

  15. on 11 May 2009 at 10:58 am 15.Lou said …

    Cheddar you must not have been here a month ago. Don’t you realize I am Darrell? At least that was the claim from my very first post.

    C’mon if you are going to make baseless accusations get them right. And stop using the “Troll” card in order to deflect attention away from an obvious issue in atheism. Sam Harris and his speech is legitimate discourse. America does have Nazis and sometimes the label is legitimate.

  16. on 11 May 2009 at 7:39 pm 16.Anonymous said …

    This is all bull—-. Of course God is real! Mankind has created all of this scientific “evidence”, yet it cannot be true. May God have mercy on the souls of the disbelievers.

  17. on 11 May 2009 at 10:46 pm 17.Wildbird said …

    Actually, “evidence” is the result of independently verified repeated objective observations in an extremely democratic system. For “scientists” to agree on any fact or theory requires a great deal of discourse and challenges. Mankind discovers evidence, we don’t “create” it.

    For one with a theistic angle, it could be said that science uncovers the workings of (insert your particular god or gods here). In that respect, science is much closer to (insert god or gods here) than anything that has been written by men (Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Upanishads, Vedas, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Tao Te Ching, etc.).

    When science and religion clash, you have to ask yourself if you trust the workings of (insert god or gods here) discovered by science, or the writings of man. Given the fact that religious texts, written by men, are usually vague, ambiguous, self-conflicting, unethical, and nonfactual, the better path to (insert god or gods here) is obviously science.

  18. on 13 May 2009 at 5:38 pm 18.Mozarella said …

    I wasn’t aware Sam Harris wanted a Fourth Reich to celebrate his Jewish heritage. It’s funny how these things happen, isn’t it, Louse?

  19. on 14 May 2009 at 10:56 am 19.Lou said …

    I let Sam’s word’s speak for themselves Moz. I don’t need to add any commentary since it is so enriching on it’s own. Be cognizant, this is against any “idea” he finds dangerous, not necessarily against Jews. Of course if he finds his heritage “dangerous” look out! We could have more crucifixions.

    Rather than Nazi, I think we should engage the term National Socialist to blunt the emotionalism of the term. So many look at Nazi and equate it with being anti-Semitic. The ideology is so much more than that. I think Sam pretty much renounced Judaism when he became an atheist. That seems to be a no brainer.

  20. on 14 May 2009 at 2:15 pm 20.Gouda said …

    You’re an idiot who is confusing “fascist” with “nazi”. Of course, you apparently don’t know what either mean, or you wouldn’t keep using them.

  21. on 15 May 2009 at 12:12 pm 21.valdemar said …

    How many religious believers in the world today – especially American Christians, Israeli Jews and Iranian Muslims – would disagree with the statement ‘some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them’?

    Oh, and please give the source of the quote, somebody. A book, recorded interview, newspaper article?

  22. on 15 May 2009 at 3:45 pm 22.Lou said …

    Lets see if I have this straight. Harris makes the statement, but rather than dealing with Harris you in turn make the assumption through silence that somehow all the above religious groups would not disagree? LOL, that is so silly. I personally have never felt the need to deny such a statement up until now because it is so hideous it just goes without saying.

    Um, I will assume innocence (other than Wahhabis) unless I see read otherwise. The wahhabis have have proven they agree through their actions.

  23. on 16 May 2009 at 3:54 am 23.Monterey Jack said …

    Oh noes sam harris is a nazi like that automatically validates the christian faith lol

    If that seemed rude or condescending, it was. But it’s appropriate.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply